Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3691 

haze. The monitoring network includes 

Federal Reference Method, continuous, 

and speciation monitors. The speciation 

monitors that gather data on fine 

particulate composition includes the 

IMPROVE monitors along with two 

additional speciation sites in 

Minneapolis and Rochester. EPA finds 

that Minnesota’s regional haze plan 

meets the monitoring requirements for 

the RHR and that Minnesota’s network 

of monitoring sites is satisfactory to 

measure air quality in its Class I areas 

and assess its contribution to regional 

haze. 

G. Comments 

Minnesota offered the public an 

opportunity to comment on its proposed 

regional haze plan. Minnesota gave 

notice of a comment period on February 

25, 2008, that lasted until May 16, 2008. 

Minnesota held at public meeting on 

April 10, 2008. An addition comment 

period was given from July 20, 2009, to 

September 3, 2009 for revised portions 

of the plan. 

Minnesota included the original 

comment letters in its plan. The state 

also provided it responses to the 

comments. Minnesota made revisions to 

its proposed plans following the initial 

comment period. The revised portions 

of the plan included source-specific 

BART for EGUs (an element that 

Minnesota has now indicated that it will 

replace with reliance on the Transport 

Rule as an EPA-approved alternative to 

EGU BART), BART for taconite 

facilities, and its LTS. Minnesota 

provided the second comment period to 

receive public comment on the revised 

plan. Minnesota is taking public 

comment from December 19, 2011 to 

February 3, 2012. Minnesota will also 

take public comment at the March 27, 

2012 Citizens’ Board meeting. 

Minnesota has satisfied the 

requirements from 40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix V to provide evidence that it 

gave public notice, took comment, and 

that it compiled and responded to 

comments. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing action on a regional 

haze plan that Minnesota submitted on 

December 30, 2009, and supplemented 

on January 5, 2012. EPA is proposing to 

approve Minnesota’s State 

Implementation Plan addressing 

regional haze for the first 

implementation period, provided it 

adopts and submits administrative 

orders consistent with its recent 

proposal of administrative orders. Full 

approval of the BART emission limits 

for the five EGUs is contingent on EPA’s 

finalization of the rule, proposed on 

December 30, 2011, finding that the 

Transport Rule provides greater 

visibility improvement that 

implementing BART. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews. 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: January 17, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1519 Filed 1–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0091, EPA–R03– 

OAR–2011–0584; FRL–9622–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Commonwealth of Virginia; Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval and a limited disapproval of 

six revisions to the Virginia State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Commonwealth of Virginia, through 

the Department of Environmental 

Quality (VADEQ), that address regional 

haze for the first implementation period. 

These revisions address the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA’s rules that require 

states to prevent any future and remedy 

any existing anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

(national parks and wilderness areas) 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

from numerous sources located over a 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of these SIP revisions to 

implement the regional haze 

requirements for Virginia on the basis 

that the revisions, as a whole, 

strengthen the Virginia SIP. Also in this 

action, EPA is proposing a limited 

disapproval of these same SIP revisions 

because of the deficiencies in the 

Commonwealth’s regional haze SIP 

submittal arising from the remand by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia (DC Circuit) to EPA of the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3692 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). EPA is 

also proposing to approve this revision 

as meeting the infrastructure 

requirements relating to visibility 

protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) and the 1997 and 2006 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2011–0091 and EPA–R03– 

OAR–2011–0584 by one of the following 

methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0091 

and EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0584, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2011– 

0091 and EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0584. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Linden, (215) 814–2096, or by 

email at linden.melissa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. The Commonwealth of Virginia 

submitted revisions to its SIP for 

Regional Haze on July 17, 2008, March 

6, 2009, January 14, 2010, October 4, 

2010, November 19, 2010, and May 6, 

2011. 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility 

III. What are the requirements for the regional 

haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the RHR 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

IV. What is the relationship of the CAIR and 

the transport rule to the regional haze 

requirements? 

A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR 

B. Remand of the CAIR and Promulgation 

of the Transport Rule 

C. Regional Haze SIP Elements Potentially 

Affected by the CAIR Remand and 

Promulgation of the Transport Rule 

D. Rationale and Scope of Proposed 

Limited Approval and Limited 

Disapproval 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of Virginia’s 

regional haze submittal? 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

3. Relative Contributions to Visibility 

Impairment: Pollutants, Source 

Categories, and Geographic Areas 

4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls in Virginia and Surrounding 

Areas 

5. Application of the Four CAA Factors in 

the Reasonable Progress Analysis 

6. BART 

7. RPGs 

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

F. Consultation With States and FLMs 

1. Consultation With Other States 

2. Consultation With the FLMs 

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

VI. General Information Pertaining to SIP 

Submittals From the Commonwealth of 

Virginia 

VII. What action is EPA taking? 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of Virginia’s July 17, 2008, March 6, 

2009, January 14, 2010, October 4, 2010, 

November 19, 2010, and May 6, 2011 

SIP revisions addressing regional haze 

under CAA sections 301(a) and 

110(k)(3) because the revisions as a 

whole strengthen the Virginia SIP. 

However, the Virginia SIP relies on 

CAIR, an EPA rule, to satisfy key 

elements of the regional haze 

requirements. Due to the remand of 

CAIR, see North Carolina v. EPA, 531 

F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 2008), the revisions do 

not meet all of the applicable 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations as set forth in sections 169A 

and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 

51.300–308. As a result, EPA is 

concurrently proposing a limited 

disapproval of Virginia’s SIP revisions. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3693 

1Regional Haze: Revision to Provisions 

Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

Determinations, Limited SIP Approvals, and 

Federal Implementation Plans. This notice 

erroneously states in Footnote 5 that EPA has 

previously proposed a limited disapproval of 

Virginia’s SIP. In fact, today’s notice proposes a 

limited disapproval of Virginia’s SIP. 

2 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 3Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See 42 

U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of 

the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department 

of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 

FR 69122, November 30, 1979. The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. See 42 

U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may 

designate as Class I additional areas which they 

consider to have visibility as an important value, 

the requirements of the visibility program set forth 

in section 169A of the CAA apply only to 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory 

Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a 

‘‘Federal Land Manager.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 

When the term ‘‘Class I area’’ is used in this action, 

it means a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

The revisions nevertheless represent an 

improvement over the current SIP, and 

make considerable progress in fulfilling 

the applicable CAA regional haze 

program requirements. 

Under CAA sections 301(a) and 

110(k)(6) and EPA’s long-standing 

guidance, a limited approval results in 

approval of the entire SIP submittal, 

even of those parts that are deficient and 

prevent EPA from granting a full 

approval of the SIP revision. See 

Processing of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) Revisions, EPA Memorandum from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, OAQPS, to Air 

Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices 

I–X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum) located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/ 

siproc.pdf. The deficiencies that EPA 

has identified as preventing a full 

approval of this SIP revision relate to 

the status and impact of CAIR on certain 

interrelated and required elements of 

the regional haze program. At the time 

the Virginia regional haze SIP was being 

developed, the Commonwealth’s 

reliance on CAIR was fully consistent 

with EPA’s regulations. 70 FR 39104, 

39142 (July 6, 2005). CAIR, as originally 

promulgated, requires significant 

reductions in emissions of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

to limit the interstate transport of these 

pollutants, and the reliance on CAIR by 

affected states as an alternative to 

requiring BART for electric generating 

units (EGUs) had specifically been 

upheld in Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (DC Cir. 2006). 

In 2008, however, the DC Circuit 

remanded CAIR back to EPA. North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176. The 

Court found CAIR to be inconsistent 

with the requirements of the CAA, 

North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(DC Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded 

the rule to EPA without vacatur because 

it found that ‘‘allowing CAIR to remain 

in effect until it is replaced by a rule 

consistent with [the court’s] opinion 

would at least temporarily preserve the 

environmental values covered by 

CAIR,’’ North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 

at 1178. In response to the court’s 

decision, EPA has issued a new rule to 

address interstate transport of NOX and 

SO2 in the eastern United States (i.e., 

the Transport Rule, also known as the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule). 76 FR 

48208, August 8, 2011. In the Transport 

Rule, EPA finalized regulatory changes 

to sunset CAIR and the CAIR FIPs for 

control periods in 2012 and beyond. 76 

FR 48322. 

In the Transport Rule, EPA noted that 

it had not at that time conducted a 

technical analysis to determine whether 

compliance with the Transport Rule 

would satisfy the requirements of the 

RHR addressing alternatives to BART. 

EPA has since conducted such an 

analysis and has proposed that 

compliance with the Transport Rule 

will provide for greater reasonable 

progress toward improving visibility 

than source-specific BART controls for 

EGUs located in those states covered by 

the Transport Rule.1 76 FR 82219, 

December 30, 2011. On that same day, 

the DC Circuit issued an order 

addressing the status of the Transport 

Rule and CAIR in response to motions 

filed by numerous parties seeking a stay 

of the Transport Rule pending judicial 

review. In that order, the DC Circuit 

stayed the Transport Rule pending the 

court’s resolution of the petitions for 

review of that rule in EME Homer 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11–1302 

and consolidated cases). The court also 

indicated that EPA is expected to 

continue to administer the CAIR in the 

interim until the court rules on the 

petitions for review of the Transport 

Rule. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some 

cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC)). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter that impairs visibility by 

scattering and absorbing light. Visibility 

impairment reduces the clarity, color, 

and visible distance that one can see. 

PM2.5 can also cause serious health 

effects and mortality in humans and 

contributes to environmental effects 

such as acid deposition and 

eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range 2 in many Class I 

areas 3 (i.e., national parks and 

memorial parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. 64 FR 35715, July 1, 

1999. 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas which impairment results 

from manmade air pollution.’’ On 

December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment.’’ 45 FR 80084. These 

regulations represented the first phase 

in addressing visibility impairment. 

EPA deferred action on regional haze 

that emanates from a variety of sources 

until monitoring, modeling, and 

scientific knowledge about the 

relationships between pollutants and 

visibility impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3694 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

4Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35713), the RHR. The RHR 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate into the 

regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section III of this notice. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.4 40 

CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments, and various 

Federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter (PM) and other 

pollutants leading to regional haze. 

The Visibility Improvement State and 

Tribal Association of the Southeast 

(VISTAS) RPO is a collaborative effort of 

state governments, tribal governments, 

and various Federal agencies 

established to initiate and coordinate 

activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility 

and other air quality issues in the 

southeastern United States. Member 

state and tribal governments include: 

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West 

Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the 

Cherokee Indians. 

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA require 

that within three years of promulgation 

of a NAAQS, a state must ensure that its 

SIP, among other requirements, 

‘‘contains adequate provisions 

prohibiting any source or other types of 

emission activity within the State from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts 

which will interfere with measures 

required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other State to protect visibility.’’ 

Similarly, section 110(a)(2)(J) requires 

that such SIP ‘‘meet the applicable 

requirements of part C of (Subchapter I) 

(relating to visibility protection).’’ 

EPA’s 2006 Guidance, entitled 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ recognized the possibility 

that a state could potentially meet the 

visibility portions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) through its submission 

of a Regional Haze SIP, as required by 

sections 169A and 169B of the CAA. 

EPA’s 2009 guidance, entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS),’’ recommended that a state 

could meet such visibility requirements 

through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA’s 

rationale supporting this 

recommendation was that the 

development of the regional haze SIPs 

was intended to occur in a collaborative 

environment among the states, and that 

through this process states would 

coordinate on emissions controls to 

protect visibility on an interstate basis. 

The common understanding was that, as 

a result of this collaborative 

environment, each state would take 

action to achieve the emissions 

reductions relied upon by other states in 

their reasonable progress 

demonstrations under the RHR. This 

interpretation is consistent with the 

requirement in the RHR that a state 

participating in a regional planning 

process must include ‘‘all measures 

needed to achieve its apportionment of 

emission reduction obligations agreed 

upon through that process.’’ See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

The regional haze program, as 

reflected in the RHR, recognizes the 

importance of addressing the long-range 

transport of pollutants for visibility and 

encourages states to work together to 

develop plans to address haze. The 

regulations explicitly require each state 

to address its ‘‘share’’ of the emission 

reductions needed to meet the 

reasonable progress goals for 

neighboring Class I areas. States 

working together through a regional 

planning process, are required to 

address an agreed upon share of their 

contribution to visibility impairment in 

the Class I areas of their neighbors. See 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these 

requirements, appropriate regional haze 

SIPs will contain measures that will 

achieve these emissions reductions and 

will meet the applicable visibility 

related requirements of section 

110(a)(2). As a result of the regional 

planning efforts in VISTAS, all states in 

the VISTAS region provided an analysis 

of the causes of haze, and the levels of 

contribution from all sources within 

each state to the visibility degradation of 

each Class I area. The VISTAS states 

consulted in the development of the 

area of influence (AOI), using the 

products of this technical consultation 

process to co-develop the 

Commonwealth’s reasonable progress 

goals for their Class I areas. The 

modeling done by VISTAS relied on 

assumptions regarding emissions over 

the relevant planning period and 

embedded in these assumptions were 

anticipated emissions reductions in 

each of the states in VISTAS, including 

reductions from BART and other 

measures to be adopted as part of the 

state’s long term strategy for addressing 

regional haze. 

The Commonwealth submitted 

Virginia’s Regional Haze SIP revisions 

on July 17, 2008 for Georgia Pacific 

Corporation BART determination and 

permit; March 6, 2009 for 

MeadWestvaco Corporation BART 

determination and permit; January 14, 

2010 for O–N Minerals Facility BART 

determination and permit; October 4, 

2010 for the comprehensive regional 

haze SIP; November 19, 2010 for the 

revision to the O–N Minerals Facility 

BART determination and permit; and 

May 6, 2011 for the MeadWestvaco 

Corporation Reasonable Progress permit, 

to address the requirements of the RHR. 

On December 10, 2007, December 13, 

2007, June 8, 2010, and June 9, 2010, 

Virginia submitted its 1997 Ozone 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3695 

5The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725, 

July 1, 1999. 

NAAQS infrastructure SIP submittals. 

On July 10, 2008, September 2, 2008, 

June 8, 2010, June 9, 2010, and August 

30, 2010, Virginia submitted its 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP 

submittals. On August 30, 2010 and 

April 1, 2011, Virginia submitted its 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP 

submittals. Infrastructure SIP submittals 

are required to be submitted by every 

state for each NAAQS promulgated by 

EPA to fulfill the requirements in 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Visibility 

protection is a requirement of these 

infrastructure SIPs in sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J) of the 

CAA and are addressed in the 

abovementioned submittals by Virginia. 

EPA has reviewed Virginia’s Regional 

Haze SIP and as explained in section VII 

of this action, proposes to find that 

Virginia’s Regional Haze submittal 

meets the portions of the requirements 

of the CAA sections 110(a)(2) relating to 

visibility protection for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

III. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

A. The CAA and the RHR 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview as 

the principal metric or unit for 

expressing visibility. This visibility 

metric expresses uniform changes in 

haziness in terms of common 

increments across the entire range of 

visibility conditions, from pristine to 

extremely hazy conditions. Visibility 

expressed in deciviews is determined by 

using air quality measurements to 

estimate light extinction and then 

transforming the value of light 

extinction using a logarithm function. 

The deciview is a more useful measure 

for tracking progress in improving 

visibility than light extinction itself 

because each deciview change is an 

equal incremental change in visibility 

perceived by the human eye. Most 

people can detect a change in visibility 

at one deciview.5

The deciview is used in expressing 

RPGs (which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources 

of air pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years, i.e., midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires states to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20 percent least 

impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most 

impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over 

a specified time period at each of their 

Class I areas. In addition, states must 

also develop an estimate of natural 

visibility conditions for the purpose of 

comparing progress toward the national 

goal. Natural visibility is determined by 

estimating the natural concentrations of 

pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment and then calculating total 

light extinction based on those 

estimates. EPA has provided guidance 

to states regarding how to calculate 

baseline, natural, and current visibility 

conditions in documents titled, EPA’s 

Guidance for Estimating Natural 

Visibility Conditions Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ 

B–03–005 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance’’), and Guidance for 

Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ 

B–03–004 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring 

data for 2000 through 2004, states are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two 

distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and 

one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class 

I area for each (approximately) 10-year 

implementation period. The RHR does 

not mandate specific milestones or rates 

of progress, but instead calls for states 

to establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions. In setting RPGs, states must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

for the most impaired days over the 

(approximately) 10-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. 

States have significant discretion in 

establishing RPGs, but are required to 

consider the following factors 

established in section 169A of the CAA 

and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3696 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

applicable Class I area. States have 

considerable flexibility in how they take 

these factors into consideration, as 

noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals Under the 

Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, 

2007, memorandum from William L. 

Wehrum, Acting Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

EPA Regional Administrators, EPA 

Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting 

the RPGs, states must also consider the 

rate of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to 

as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the 

‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction 

measures needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the 10-year period of the 

SIP. Uniform progress towards 

achievement of natural conditions by 

the year 2064 represents a rate of 

progress which states are to use for 

analytical comparison to the amount of 

progress they expect to achieve. In 

setting RPGs, each state with one or 

more Class I areas (‘‘Class I state’’) must 

also consult with potentially 

‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., other nearby 

states with emission sources that may be 

affecting visibility impairment at the 

Class I state’s areas. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 6 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the state. 

Under the RHR, states are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. In making a BART 

determination for a fossil fuel-fired 

electric generating plant with a total 

generating capacity in excess of 750 

megawatts (MW), a state must use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The state must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual source’s 

impacts. Any exemption threshold set 

by the state should not be higher than 

0.5 deciview. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

potential BART sources, described as 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 

and document their BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that 

states consider the following factors: (1) 

The costs of compliance, (2) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 

pollution control technology in use at 

the source, (4) the remaining useful life 

of the source, and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. States are 

free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each 

factor. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP. See CAA section 

169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 

addition to what is required by the RHR, 

general SIP requirements mandate that 

the SIP must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. 

As noted above, the RHR allows states 

to implement an alternative program in 

lieu of BART so long as the alternative 

program can be demonstrated to achieve 

greater reasonable progress toward the 

national visibility goal than would 

BART. Under regulations issued in 2005 

revising the regional haze program, EPA 

made just such a demonstration for 

CAIR. 70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005. EPA’s 

regulations provide that states 

participating in the CAIR cap-and trade 

program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant 

to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or which 

remain subject to the CAIR FIP in 40 

CFR part 97 need not require affected 

BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, 

and maintain BART for emissions of 

SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 

Because CAIR did not address direct 

emissions of PM, states were still 

required to conduct a BART analysis for 

PM emissions from EGUs subject to 

BART for that pollutant. 

On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed 

to find that the trading programs in the 

Transport Rule would achieve greater 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal than would BART in the 

states in which the Transport Rule 

applies. 76 FR 82219. EPA also 

proposed to revise the RHR to allow 

states to meet the requirements of an 

alternative program in lieu of BART by 

participation in the trading programs 

under the Transport Rule. EPA has not 

taken final action on that rule. 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The 

LTS is the compilation of all control 

measures a state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3697 

The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals’’ for all Class I areas 

within, or affected by emissions from, 

the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. See 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, 

the contributing state must demonstrate 

that it has included, in its SIP, all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emissions reductions needed to 

meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The 

RPOs have provided forums for 

significant interstate consultation, but 

additional consultations between states 

may be required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emissions reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address RAVI; (2) measures 

to mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities; (3) emissions limitations and 

schedules for compliance to achieve the 

RPG; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; and (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) LTS 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the state must 

revise its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze, and 

the state must submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE 

network, i.e., review and use of 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 

51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

IV. What is the relationship of the CAIR 

and the Transport Rule to the regional 

haze requirements? 

A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR 

CAIR, as originally promulgated, 

required 28 states and the District of 

Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2

and NOX that significantly contributed 

to, or interfered with maintenance of, 

the 1997 national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for fine particulates 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3698 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

7EPA mistakenly stated in a recent proposed rule 

(76 FR 82219) that EPA had already proposed 

limited disapproval the Virginia regional haze SIP 

based on its reliance on CAIR. See 76 FR at 82221, 

December 30, 2011. EPA is proposing limited 

disapproval in today’s action. 

and/or the 1997 NAAQS for 8-hour 

ozone in any downwind state. 70 FR 

25162, May 12, 2005. CAIR established 

emissions budgets for SO2 and NOX for 

states found to contribute significantly 

to nonattainment in downwind states 

and required these states to submit SIP 

revisions that implemented these 

budgets. States had the flexibility to 

choose which control measures to adopt 

to achieve the budgets, including 

participation in EPA-administered capand-trade programs addressing SO2, 

NOX-annual, and NOX-ozone season 

emissions. In 2006, EPA promulgated 

FIPs for all states covered by CAIR to 

ensure the reductions would be 

achieved in a timely manner. 

B. Remand of the CAIR and 

Promulgation of the Transport Rule 

On July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit 

issued its decision to vacate and remand 

both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs 

in their entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 

531 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2008). However, 

in response to EPA’s petition for 

rehearing, the court issued an order 

remanding CAIR to EPA without 

vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. 

The court thereby left the EPA CAIR 

rule and CAIR SIPs and FIPs in place in 

order to ‘‘temporarily preserve the 

environmental values covered by CAIR’’ 

until EPA replaces it with a rule 

consistent with the court’s opinion. 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 

1178. EPA replaced CAIR with the 

Transport Rule in August 2011. 76 FR 

48208, August 8, 2011. As described in 

section I of this notice, the Transport 

Rule has been stayed pending judicial 

review and, consistent with the order of 

the D.C. Circuit, EPA is again 

administering CAIR until the D.C. 

Circuit rules on the challenges to the 

Transport Rule. 

C. Regional Haze SIP Elements 

Potentially Affected by the CAIR 

Remand and Promulgation of the 

Transport Rule 

The following is a summary of the 

elements of the regional haze SIPs that 

are potentially affected by the remand of 

CAIR. As described above, EPA 

determined in 2005 that states opting to 

participate in the CAIR cap-and-trade 

program need not require BART for SO2

and NOX at BART-eligible EGUs. 70 FR 

39142–39143. Many states relied on 

CAIR as an alternative to BART for SO2

and NOX for subject EGUs, as allowed 

under the BART provisions at 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(4). Additionally, several states 

established RPGs that reflect the 

improvement in visibility expected to 

result from controls planned for or 

already installed on sources within the 

state to meet the CAIR provisions for 

this implementation period for specified 

pollutants. Many states relied upon 

their own CAIR SIPs or the CAIR FIPs 

for their states to provide the legal 

requirements that lead to these planned 

controls, and did not include 

enforceable measures in the LTS in the 

regional haze SIP submission to ensure 

these reductions. States also submitted 

demonstrations showing that no 

additional controls on EGUs beyond 

CAIR would be reasonable for this 

implementation period. In the case of 

Virginia, the SIP revisions related to 

regional haze rely on CAIR as an 

alternative to BART for SO2 and NOX for 

subject EGUs, and the RPGs reflect the 

improvement in visibility expected (at 

the time) to result from CAIR. EPA has 

determined in other rulemakings that 

because of the deficiencies identified in 

CAIR by the court and the sunsetting of 

CAIR by the Transport Rule, it would be 

inappropriate to fully approve states’ 

LTSs that rely upon the emissions 

reductions predicted to result from 

CAIR to meet the BART requirement for 

EGUs or to meet the RPGs in the states’ 

regional haze SIPs. Although CAIR is 

currently being administered by EPA 

pursuant to an order by D.C. Circuit in 

EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA, it 

will not remain in effect indefinitely. 

For this reason, EPA cannot fully 

approve regional haze SIP revisions that 

rely on CAIR for emission reduction 

measures. However, as discussed in 

section IV.D of this notice, EPA still 

believes it is appropriate to propose a 

limited approval of Virginia’s regional 

haze SIP revisions (listed above in 

section II.D) as these revisions provide 

an improvement over the current SIP, 

and make progress in fulfilling the 

applicable CAA regional haze program 

requirements. EPA therefore proposes to 

grant limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the six Virginia regional 

haze SIP revisions.7 The next section 

discusses how EPA proposes to address 

these deficiencies. 

In the Transport Rule, EPA did not 

substantively address the question of 

whether the emissions reductions from 

the Transport Rule will provide for 

greater reasonable progress than BART. 

EPA explained in that rulemaking that 

EPA had not yet conducted any 

technical analysis to determine whether 

the Transport Rule would provide 

sufficient emissions reductions and 

concomitant improvements in visibility 

to be considered to provide for greater 

reasonable progress than BART. The 

EPA has now completed such an 

analysis and has proposed the Transport 

Rule as an alternative to BART for EGUs 

located in the Transport Rule states 

(which include Virginia). 76 FR 82219. 

D. Rationale and Scope of Proposed 

Limited Approval and Limited 

Disapproval 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

of Virginia’s regional haze SIP revisions. 

Limited approval results in approval of 

the entire regional haze submission and 

all its elements. EPA is taking this 

approach because an affected state’s SIP 

will be stronger and more protective of 

the environment with the 

implementation of measures taken by 

the state and with Federal approval and 

enforceability than it would without 

those measures being included in the 

state’s SIP. 

EPA is also proposing a limited 

disapproval of the Virginia regional 

haze SIP revisions that rely on CAIR. As 

explained in the 1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum, ‘‘[t]hrough a limited 

approval, EPA [will] concurrently, or 

within a reasonable period of time 

thereafter, disapprove the rule * * * for 

not meeting all of the applicable 

requirements of the Act. * * * [T]he 

limited disapproval is a rulemaking 

action, and it is subject to notice and 

comment.’’ Final limited disapproval of 

a SIP submittal does not affect the 

Federal enforceability of the measures 

in the subject SIP revision nor prevent 

state implementation of these measures. 

The legal effects of a final limited 

disapproval are to provide EPA the 

authority to issue a FIP at any time, and 

to obligate EPA to take such action no 

more than two years after the effective 

date of the final limited disapproval 

action. On December 30, 2011, EPA 

proposed a partial regional haze Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) that would 

provide that the BART requirements for 

SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs in 

Virginia is satisfied by the alreadypromulgated Transport Rule FIP 

applicable to EGU sources in Virginia, 

as would be allowed by a proposed 

revision to the Regional Haze Rule that 

was included in the same notice. 76 FR 

82219. Comments on the proposed 

regional haze FIP are requested and may 

be submitted to the docket for this 

action or to the docket for the proposed 

regional haze rule revisions (Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0729). The 

EPA encourages Virginia, as it does all 

states in a similar situation, to submit a 

revision to its regional haze SIP 

incorporating the requirements of the 

Transport Rule as the alternative to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3699 

8The IMPROVE program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering 

committee composed of representatives from 

Federal agencies (including representatives from 

EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE 

monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid 

the creation of Federal and State implementation 

plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas. 

One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify 

chemical species and emission sources responsible 

for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. 

The IMPROVE program has also been a key 

participant in visibility-related research, including 

the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 

analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 

formulation and source attribution field studies. 

9The science behind the revised IMPROVE 

equation is summarized in Virginia’s Appendix B 

and in numerous published papers. See for 

example: Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review 

of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient 

Light Extinction Coefficients—Final Report. March 

2006. Prepared for Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE), 

Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for 

Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ 

publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/ 

IMPROVEeqReview.htm; and Pitchford, Marc., 

2006, Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the 

New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species 

Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the 

Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO 

Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 

2006 http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ 

Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/ 

naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt. 

BART for SO2 and NOX emissions from 

EGUs, at which time we will withdraw 

the regional haze FIP. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of Virginia’s 

regional haze submittal? 

On July 17, 2008, March 6, 2009, 

January 14, 2010, October 4, 2010, 

November 19, 2010, and May 6, 2011, 

VADEQ submitted revisions to the 

Virginia SIP to address regional haze in 

the Commonwealth’s Class I area as 

required by EPA’s RHR. 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

Virginia has two Class I areas within 

its borders: Shenandoah National Park 

and James River Face Wilderness Area. 

Virginia is responsible for developing a 

regional haze SIP that addresses these 

Class I areas and for consulting with 

other states that impact these areas. 

The October 4, 2010, Virginia regional 

haze SIP establishes RPGs for visibility 

improvement at Shenandoah National 

Park and James River Face Wilderness 

Area and a LTS to achieve those RPGs 

within the first regional haze 

implementation period ending in 2018. 

In developing the LTS for the areas, 

Virginia considered both emission 

sources inside and outside of Virginia 

that may cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in Virginia’s Class I areas. 

The Commonwealth also identified and 

considered emission sources within 

Virginia that may cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in Class I areas in 

neighboring states as required by 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3). The VISTAS RPO 

worked with the Commonwealth in 

developing the technical analyses used 

to make these determinations, including 

state-by-state contributions to visibility 

impairment in specific Class I areas, 

which included the Class I areas in 

Virginia and those areas affected by 

emissions from Virginia. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

As required by the RHR and in 

accordance with EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, Virginia calculated 

baseline/current and natural visibility 

conditions for its Class I area, as 

summarized below. 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

Natural background visibility, as 

defined in EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance, is estimated by calculating 

the expected light extinction using 

default estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components adjusted by site-specific 

estimates of humidity. This calculation 

uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a 

formula for estimating light extinction 

from the estimated natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components (or from components 

measured by the IMPROVE monitors). 

As documented in EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states 

to use ‘‘refined’’ or alternative 

approaches to 2003 EPA guidance to 

estimate the values that characterize the 

natural visibility conditions of the Class 

I areas. One alternative approach is to 

develop and justify the use of 

alternative estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components. Another alternative is to 

use the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation’’ that 

was adopted for use by the IMPROVE 

Steering Committee in December 2005.8

The purpose of this refinement to the 

‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to provide 

more accurate estimates of the various 

factors that affect the calculation of light 

extinction. Virginia opted to use this 

refined approach, referred to as the 

‘‘new IMPROVE equation,’’ for its Class 

I areas. 

Natural visibility conditions using the 

new IMPROVE equation were calculated 

separately for each Class I area by 

VISTAS. Natural background visibility, 

as defined in EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, is estimated by 

calculating the expected light extinction 

using default estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components adjusted by site-specific 

estimates of humidity. 

The new IMPROVE equation takes 

into account the most recent review of 

the science 9 and it accounts for the 

effect of particle size distribution on 

light extinction efficiency of sulfate, 

nitrate, and organic carbon. It also 

adjusts the mass multiplier for organic 

carbon (particulate organic matter) by 

increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms 

are added to the equation to account for 

light extinction by sea salt and light 

absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. 

Site-specific values are used for 

Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light 

due to atmospheric gases) to account for 

the site-specific effects of elevation and 

temperature. Separate relative humidity 

enhancement factors are used for small 

and large size distributions of 

ammonium sulfate and ammonium 

nitrate and for sea salt. The terms for the 

remaining contributors, elemental 

carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine 

soil, and coarse mass terms, do not 

change between the original and new 

IMPROVE equations. 

2. Estimating Baseline Conditions 

VADEQ estimated baseline visibility 

conditions at the Virginia Class I areas 

using available monitoring data from 

IMPROVE monitoring sites in 

Shenandoah National Park and James 

River Face Wilderness Area. As 

explained in section III.B, baseline 

visibility conditions are the same as 

current conditions for the first regional 

haze SIP. A five-year average of the 2000 

to 2004 monitoring data was calculated 

for each of the 20 percent worst and 20 

percent best visibility days at the 

Virginia Class I areas. IMPROVE data 

records for Shenandoah National Park 

and James River Face Wilderness Area 

for the period 2000 to 2004 meet the 

EPA requirements for data 

completeness. See pages 2–8 of EPA’s 

2003 Tracking Progress Guidance. The 

20 percent best and worst days for the 

baseline period of 2000–2004 for 

Shenandoah National Park and James 

River Face Wilderness Area is provided 

at the following Web site: http:// 

www.metro4-sesarm.org/vistas/ 

SesarmBext_20BW.htm. 

3. Summary of Baseline and Natural 

Conditions 

For the Virginia Class I areas, the 

baseline visibility on the 20 percent 

worst days is approximately 29 

deciviews. Natural visibility in the area 

is predicted to be approximately 11 

deciviews on the 20 percent worst days. 

The natural and baseline conditions for 

Virginia’s Class I areas for both the 20 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3700 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

percent worst and best days are 

presented in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—NATURAL BACKGROUND AND BASELINE CONDITIONS FOR THE VIRGINIA CLASS I AREAS

Class I area Average for 20% 

worst days (dv) 9

Average for 20% 

best days (dv) 

Natural Background Conditions: 

Shenandoah National Park .................................................................................................................. 11.4 3.1 

James River Face Wilderness Area ..................................................................................................... 11.1 4.4 

Baseline Visibility Conditions (2000–2004): 

Shenandoah National Park .................................................................................................................. 29.3 10.9 

James River Face Wilderness Area ..................................................................................................... 29.1 14.2 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

In setting the RPGs, Virginia 

considered the uniform rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 (‘‘glidepath’’) and 

the emission reduction measures 

needed to achieve that rate of progress 

over the period of the SIP to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). As explained in 

EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance 

document, the uniform rate of progress 

is not a presumptive target, and RPGs 

may be greater, lesser, or equivalent to 

the glidepath. 

The Commonwealth’s implementation 

plan presents two sets of graphs, one for 

the 20 percent best days, and one for the 

20 percent worst days, for its Class I 

areas. Virginia constructed the graph for 

the worst days (i.e., the glidepath) in 

accordance with EPA’s 2003 Tracking 

Progress Guidance by plotting a straight 

graphical line from the baseline level of 

visibility impairment for 2000–2004 to 

the level of visibility conditions 

representing no anthropogenic 

impairment in 2064 for its area. For the 

best days, the graph includes a 

horizontal, straight line spanning from 

baseline conditions in 2004 out to 2018 

to depict no degradation in visibility 

over the implementation period of the 

SIP. Virginia’s SIP shows that the 

Commonwealth’s RPGs for its area 

provide for improvement in visibility 

for the 20 percent worst days over the 

period of the implementation plan and 

ensure no degradation in visibility for 

the 20 percent best days over the same 

period, in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1). 

For the Shenandoah National Park, 

the overall visibility improvement 

necessary to reach natural conditions is 

the difference between baseline 

visibility of 29.3 deciviews for the 20 

percent worst days and natural 

conditions of 11.4 deciviews, i.e., 17.9 

deciviews. Over the 60-year period from 

2004 to 2064, this would require an 

average improvement of 0.298 

deciviews per year to reach natural 

conditions. For the James River Face 

Wilderness Area, the overall visibility 

improvement necessary to reach natural 

conditions is the difference between 

baseline visibility of 29.1 deciviews for 

the 20 percent worst days and natural 

conditions of 11.1 deciviews, i.e., 18.0 

deciviews. Over the 60-year period from 

2004 to 2064, this would require an 

average improvement of 0.30 deciviews 

per year to reach natural conditions. 

Hence, for the 14-year period from 2004 

to 2018, in order to achieve visibility 

improvements at least equivalent to the 

uniform rate of progress for the 20 

percent worst days at Shenandoah 

National Park, Virginia would need to 

project at least 4.172 deciviews over the 

first implementation period (i.e., 0.298 

deciviews × 14 years = 4.172 deciviews) 

of visibility improvement from the 29.1 

deciviews baseline in 2004, resulting in 

visibility levels at or below 24.928 

deciviews in 2018. Virginia would need 

to project at least 4.2 deciviews 

improvement in order to achieve 

visibility improvements at least 

equivalent to the uniform rate of 

progress for the 20 percent worst days 

at James River Face Wilderness Area for 

the first implementation period. 

Virginia projects for Shenandoah 

National Park a 7.4 deciview 

improvement to visibility from the 29.3 

deciview baseline to 21.9 deciviews in 

2018 for the 20 percent most impaired 

days, and a 2.2 deciview improvement 

to 8.7 deciviews from the baseline 

visibility of 10.9 deciviews for the 20 

percent least impaired days. For James 

River Face Wilderness Area, Virginia 

projects a 6.7 deciview improvement to 

visibility from the 29.1 deciview 

baseline to 22.4 deciviews in 2018 for 

the 20 percent most impaired days, and 

a 1.8 deciview improvement to 12.4 

deciviews from the baseline visibility of 

14.2 deciviews for the 20 percent least 

impaired days. 

C. Long-Term Strategy/Strategies 

As described in section III.E of this 

action, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by 

the state for achieving its RPGs. 

Virginia’s LTS for the first 

implementation period addresses the 

emissions reductions from Federal, 

state, and local controls that take effect 

in the Commonwealth from the end of 

the baseline period starting in 2004 

until 2018. The Virginia LTS was 

developed by the Commonwealth, in 

coordination with the VISTAS RPO, 

through an evaluation of the following 

components: (1) Identification of the 

emissions units within Virginia and in 

surrounding states that likely have the 

largest impacts currently on visibility at 

the Commonwealth’s Class I areas; (2) 

estimation of emissions reductions for 

2018 based on all controls required or 

expected under Federal and state 

regulations for the 2004–2018 period 

(including BART); (3) comparison of 

projected visibility improvement with 

the uniform rate of progress for the 

Commonwealth’s Class I areas; and (4) 

application of the four statutory factors 

in the reasonable progress analysis for 

the identified emissions units to 

determine if additional reasonable 

controls were required. 

CAIR is also an element of Virginia’s 

LTS. CAIR rule revisions were approved 

into the Virginia SIP in 2007. Virginia 

opted to rely on CAIR emission 

reduction requirements to satisfy the 

BART requirements for SO2 and NOX

from EGUs. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 

Therefore, Virginia only required its 

BART-eligible EGUs to evaluate PM 

emissions for determining whether they 

are subject to BART, and, if applicable, 

for performing a BART control 

assessment. See section III.D. of this 

notice for further details. Additionally, 

as discussed below in section V.C.5, 

Virginia concluded that no additional 

controls beyond CAIR are reasonable for 

reasonable progress for its EGUs for this 

first implementation period. Prior to the 

remand of CAIR, EPA believed the 

Commonwealth’s reliance on CAIR for 

specific BART and reasonable progress 

provisions affecting its EGUs was 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3701 

10See NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250. 

adequate, as detailed later in this notice. 

As explained in section IV of this 

notice, EPA proposes today to issue a 

limited approval and a proposed limited 

disapproval of the Commonwealth’s 

regional haze SIP revisions that rely on 

CAIR requirements. 

1. Emissions Inventory for 2018 With 

Federal and State Control Requirements 

The emissions inventory used in the 

regional haze technical analyses was 

developed by VISTAS with assistance 

from Virginia. The 2018 emissions 

inventory was developed by projecting 

2002 emissions and applying reductions 

expected from Federal and state 

regulations affecting the emissions of 

VOC and the visibility-impairing 

pollutants NOX, PM, and SO2. The 

BART Guidelines direct states to 

exercise judgment in deciding whether 

VOC and NH3 impair visibility in their 

Class I area(s). As discussed further in 

section V.C.3, VISTAS performed 

modeling sensitivity analyses, which 

demonstrated that anthropogenic 

emissions of VOC and NH3 do not 

significantly impair visibility in the 

VISTAS region. Thus, while emissions 

inventories were also developed for NH3

and VOC, and applicable Federal VOC 

reductions were incorporated into 

Virginia’s regional haze analyses, 

Virginia did not further evaluate NH3

and VOC emissions sources for potential 

controls under BART or reasonable 

progress. 

VISTAS developed emissions for five 

inventory source classifications: 

Stationary point and area sources, offroad and on-road mobile sources, and 

biogenic sources. Stationary point 

sources are those sources that emit 

greater than a specified tonnage per 

year, depending on the pollutant, with 

data provided at the facility level. 

Stationary area sources are those 

sources whose individual emissions are 

relatively small, but due to the large 

number of these sources, the collective 

emissions from the source category 

could be significant. VISTAS estimated 

emissions on a countywide level for the 

inventory categories of: (a) Stationary 

area sources; (b) off-road (or non-road) 

mobile sources (i.e., equipment that can 

move but does not use the roadways); 

and (c) biogenic sources (which are 

natural sources of emissions, such as 

trees). On-road mobile source emissions 

are estimated by vehicle type and road 

type, and are summed to the 

countywide level. 

There are many Federal and state 

control programs being implemented 

that VISTAS and Virginia anticipate 

will reduce emissions between the end 

of the baseline period and 2018. 

Emissions reductions from these control 

programs are projected to achieve 

substantial visibility improvement by 

2018 in the Virginia Class I areas. The 

control programs relied upon by 

Virginia include CAIR; NOX SIP Call; 

North Carolina’s Clean Smokestacks 

Act; Georgia multi-pollutant rule; 

consent decrees for Tampa Electric, 

Virginia Electric and Power Company, 

Gulf Power-Plant Crist, East Kentucky 

Power Cooperative (EKPC)—Cooper and 

Spurlock stations, and American 

Electric Power (AEP); NOX and/or VOC 

reductions from the control rules in 

1-hour ozone SIPs for Atlanta, 

Birmingham, and Northern Kentucky; 

North Carolina’s NOX Reasonably 

Available Control Technology state rule 

for Philip Morris USA and Norandal 

USA in the Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock 

Hill 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area; Federal 2007 heavy duty diesel 

engine standards for on-road trucks and 

buses; federal Tier 2 tailpipe controls for 

on-road vehicles; federal large spark 

ignition and recreational vehicle 

controls; and EPA’s non-road diesel 

rules. Controls from various federal 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) rules were also 

utilized in the development of the 2018 

emission inventory projections. These 

MACT rules include the industrial 

boiler/process heater MACT (referred to 

as ‘‘Industrial Boiler MACT’’), the 

combustion turbine and reciprocating 

internal combustion engines MACTs, 

and the VOC 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year 

MACT standards. 

On June 8, 2007, and effective July 30, 

2007, the U.S. District Court of Appeals 

mandated the vacatur and remand of the 

Industrial Boiler MACT Rule.10 This 

MACT was vacated since it was directly 

affected by the vacatur and remand of 

the Commercial and Industrial Solid 

Waste Incinerator Definition Rule. 

Notwithstanding the vacatur of the 

Industrial Boiler MACT Rule, the 

VISTAS states, including Virginia, 

decided to leave these controls in the 

modeling for their regional haze SIPs 

since it was believed at the time that by 

2018, EPA would re-promulgate an 

industrial boiler MACT rule or the states 

would have addressed the issue through 

state-level case-by-case MACT reviews 

in accordance with section 112(j) of the 

CAA. This in fact was the case since 

EPA proposed a new Industrial Boiler 

MACT rule to address the vacatur on 

June 4, 2010 (75 FR 32006), and issued 

a final rule on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 

15608). Thus, Virginia has sufficient 

time to assure the required controls are 

in place prior to the end of the first 

implementation period in 2018 since 

compliance with MACT limits for 

industrial boilers will occur well before 

the 2018 RPGs for regional haze. Even 

though Virginia’s modeling is based on 

the vacated Industrial Boiler MACT 

limits, Virginia’s modeling conclusions 

are unlikely to be affected because the 

expected reductions due to the vacated 

rule were relatively small compared to 

the Commonwealth’s total SO2, PM2.5, 

and coarse particulate matter (PM10) 

emissions in 2018 (i.e., 0.1 to 0.2 

percent, depending on the pollutant, of 

the projected 2018 SO2, PM2.5, and PM10

inventory). Thus, EPA does not expect 

that differences between the vacated 

and final Industrial Boiler MACT 

emission limits would affect the 

adequacy of the existing Virginia 

regional haze SIP. If there is a need to 

address discrepancies between 

projected emissions reductions from the 

vacated Industrial Boiler MACT and the 

Industrial Boiler MACT finalized in 

March 2011, we expect Virginia to do so 

in their 5-year progress report. Below in 

Tables 2 and 3 are summaries of the 

2002 baseline and 2018 estimated 

emission inventories for Virginia. 

TABLE 2—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR VIRGINIA

[Tons per year] 

VOC NH3 PM10 PM2.5 NOX SO2

Point ................................................................................. 43,906 3,231 17,212 12,771 147,301 305,107 

Area .................................................................................. 174,851 43,975 239,096 45,292 51,753 105,982 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................... 157,989 7,770 5,312 3,067 219,835 8,196 

Non-Road Mobile ............................................................. 74,866 48 8,728 8,288 63,219 8,663 

Biogenics .......................................................................... 923,219 N/A N/A N/A 11,443 N/A 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3702 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—2002 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR VIRGINIA—Continued 

[Tons per year] 

VOC NH3 PM10 PM2.5 NOX SO2

Total .......................................................................... 1,374,831 55,024 270,348 69,418 493,551 427,948 

* N/A—not applicable. 

TABLE 3—2018 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY FOR WEST VIRGINIA

[Tons per year] 

VOC NH3 PM10 PM2.5 NOX SO2

Point ................................................................................. 54,200 4,226 27,662 23,570 122,019 183,164 

Area (includes fires) ......................................................... 152,186 50,296 277,969 48,942 56,736 109,538 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................... 55,992 9,653 2,813 1,404 57,192 949 

Non-road Mobile .............................................................. 49,052 61 6,208 5,891 40,393 507 

Biogenics .......................................................................... 923,219 N/A N/A N/A 11,443 N/A 

Total .......................................................................... 1,234,649 287,783 314,652 79,807 287,783 294,158

* N/A—not applicable. 

2. Modeling To Support the LTS and 

Determine Visibility Improvement for 

Uniform Rate of Progress 

VISTAS performed modeling for the 

regional haze LTS for the 10 

southeastern states, including Virginia. 

The modeling analysis is a complex 

technical evaluation that began with 

selection of the modeling system. 

VISTAS used the following modeling 

system: 

• Meteorological Model: The 

Pennsylvania State University/National 

Center for Atmospheric Research 

Mesoscale Meteorological Model is a 

nonhydrostatic, prognostic, 

meteorological model routinely used for 

urban- and regional- scale 

photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze 

regulatory modeling studies. 

• Emissions Model: The Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

modeling system is an emissions 

modeling system that generates hourly 

gridded speciated emission inputs of 

mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, 

fire, and biogenic emission sources for 

photochemical grid models. 

• Air Quality Model: The EPA’s 

Models-3/Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a 

photochemical grid model capable of 

addressing ozone, PM, visibility, and 

acid deposition at a regional scale. The 

photochemical model selected for this 

study was CMAQ version 4.5. It was 

modified through VISTAS with a 

module for Secondary Organics 

Aerosols in an open and transparent 

manner that was also subjected to 

outside peer review. 

CMAQ modeling of regional haze in the 

VISTAS region for 2002 and 2018 was 

carried out on a grid of 12x12 kilometer 

cells that covers the 10 VISTAS states 

(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West 

Virginia) and states adjacent to them. 

This grid is nested within a larger 

national CMAQ modeling grid of 36x36 

kilometer grid cells that covers the 

continental United States, portions of 

Canada and Mexico, and portions of the 

Atlantic and Pacific Oceans along the 

east and west coasts. Selection of a 

representative period of meteorology is 

crucial for evaluating baseline air 

quality conditions and projecting future 

changes in air quality due to changes in 

emissions of visibility-impairing 

pollutants. VISTAS conducted an indepth analysis which resulted in the 

selection of the entire year of 2002 

(January 1–December 31) as the best 

period of meteorology available for 

conducting the CMAQ modeling. The 

VISTAS states modeling was developed 

consistent with EPA’s Guidance on the 

Use of Models and Other Analyses for 

Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and 

Regional Haze, located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/ 

guide/final-03-p.m.-rh-guidance.pdf, 

(EPA–454/B–07–002), April 2007, and 

EPA document, Emissions Inventory 

Guidance for Implementation of Ozone 

and Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations, located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/ 

index.html, EPA–454/R–05–001, August 

2005, updated November 2005 (‘‘EPA’s 

Modeling Guidance’’). 

VISTAS examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

modeling assessment predicts future 

levels of emissions and visibility 

impairment used to support the LTS 

and to compare predicted, modeled 

visibility levels with those on the 

uniform rate of progress. In keeping 

with the objective of the CMAQ 

modeling platform, the air quality 

model performance was evaluated using 

graphical and statistical assessments 

based on measured ozone, fine particles, 

and acid deposition from various 

monitoring networks and databases for 

the 2002 base year. VISTAS used a 

diverse set of statistical parameters from 

the EPA’s Modeling Guidance to stress 

and examine the model and modeling 

inputs. Once VISTAS determined the 

model performance to be acceptable, 

VISTAS used the model to assess the 

2018 RPGs using the current and future 

year air quality modeling predictions, 

and compared the RPGs to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), the Commonwealth of 

Virginia provided the appropriate 

supporting documentation for all 

required analyses used to determine the 

Commonwealth’s LTS. The technical 

analyses and modeling used to develop 

the glidepath and to support the LTS are 

consistent with EPA’s RHR, and interim 

and final EPA Modeling Guidance. EPA 

accepts the VISTAS technical modeling 

to support the LTS and determine 

visibility improvement for the uniform 

rate of progress because the modeling 

system was chosen and simulated 

according to EPA Modeling Guidance. 

EPA agrees with the VISTAS model 

performance procedures and results, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3703 

and that the CMAQ is an appropriate 

tool for the regional haze assessments 

for the Virginia LTS and regional haze 

SIP, further EPA analysis can be found 

in the Technical Support Document for 

the Modeling Portions of the 

Commonwealth of Virginia’s Regional 

Haze SIP. 

3. Relative Contributions to Visibility 

Impairment: Pollutants, Source 

Categories, and Geographic Areas 

An important step toward identifying 

reasonable progress measures is to 

identify the key pollutants contributing 

to visibility impairment at each Class I 

area. To understand the relative benefit 

of further reducing emissions from 

different pollutants, source sectors, and 

geographic areas, VISTAS developed 

emission sensitivity model runs using 

CMAQ to evaluate visibility and air 

quality impacts from various groups of 

emissions and pollutant scenarios in the 

Class I areas on the 20 percent worst 

visibility days. 

Regarding which pollutants are most 

significantly impacting visibility in the 

VISTAS region, VISTAS’ contribution 

assessment, based on IMPROVE 

monitoring data, demonstrated that 

ammonium sulfate is the major 

contributor to PM2.5 mass and visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in the 

VISTAS and neighboring states. On the 

20 percent worst visibility days in 

2000–2004, ammonium sulfate 

accounted for 69 to 74 percent of the 

calculated light extinction for all but 

one of the Class I areas in the VISTAS 

states. In particular, for Shenandoah 

National Park and James River Face 

Wilderness Area, sulfate levels on the 

20 percent worst days account for 60– 

70 percent of the visibility impairment. 

However, occasionally particulate 

organic matter (POM) can be a 

significant contributor as well. On the 

very few 20 percent worst visibility days 

that occur outside of the April through 

September time period, either PM, 

ammonium nitrate, or a combination of 

POM and ammonium nitrate offer 

significant contributions towards 

visibility impairment in the James River 

Face Wilderness Area and Shenandoah 

National Park. 

VISTAS grouped its 18 Class I areas 

into two types, either ‘‘coastal’’ or 

‘‘inland’’ (sometimes referred to as 

‘‘mountain’’) sites, based on common/ 

similar characteristics (e.g., terrain, 

geography, meteorology), to better 

represent variations in model sensitivity 

and performance within the VISTAS 

region, and to describe the common 

factors influencing visibility conditions 

in the two types of Class I areas. 

Virginia’s Class I areas is an ‘‘inland’’ 

area. 

Results from VISTAS’ emission 

sensitivity analyses indicate that sulfate 

particles resulting from SO2 emissions 

are the dominant contributor to 

visibility impairment on the 20 percent 

worst days at all Class I areas in 

VISTAS, including the Virginia areas. 

Virginia concluded that reducing SO2

emissions from EGU and non-EGU point 

sources in the VISTAS states would 

have the greatest visibility benefits for 

the Virginia Class I areas. Because 

ammonium nitrate is a small contributor 

to PM2.5 mass and visibility impairment 

on the 20 percent worst days at the 

inland Class I areas in VISTAS, which 

include Shenandoah National Park and 

James River Face Wilderness Area, the 

benefits of reducing NOX and NH3

emissions at these sites are small. 

The VISTAS sensitivity analyses 

show that VOC emissions from biogenic 

sources such as vegetation also 

contribute to visibility impairment. 

However, control of these biogenic 

sources of VOC would be extremely 

difficult, if not impossible. The 

anthropogenic sources of VOC 

emissions are minor compared to the 

biogenic sources. Therefore, controlling 

anthropogenic sources of VOC 

emissions would have little if any 

visibility benefits at the Class I areas in 

the VISTAS region, including Virginia. 

The sensitivity analyses also show that 

reducing primary carbon from point 

sources, ground level sources, or fires is 

projected to have small to no visibility 

benefit at the VISTAS Class I areas. 

Virginia considered the factors listed 

in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) and in section 

III.E. of this action to develop its LTS as 

described below. Virginia, in 

conjunction with VISTAS, 

demonstrated in its SIP that elemental 

carbon (a product of highway and nonroad diesel engines, agricultural 

burning, prescribed fires, and wildfires), 

fine soils (a product of construction 

activities and activities that generate 

fugitive dust), and ammonia are 

relatively minor contributors to 

visibility impairment at the Class I areas 

in Virginia. Virginia considered 

agricultural and forestry smoke 

management techniques to address 

visibility impacts from elemental 

carbon. The Virginia Department of 

Forestry (VDOF) has developed smoke 

management guidelines and these 

guidelines specifically note that Federal 

Class I air quality areas are sensitive 

areas that need special consideration if 

located near planned prescribed burns. 

With regard to fine soils, the 

Commonwealth considered those 

activities that generate fugitive dust, 

including construction activities. With 

regard to all road and bridge 

construction activities, Virginia 

Department of Transportation (VDOT) 

uses Section 107.14(b)(2) of VDOT’s 

2007 Road and Bridge Specifications in 

all contracts. With regard to ammonia, 

the Commonwealth has chosen not to 

develop controls for ammonia emissions 

from Virginia sources in this first 

implementation period because of its 

relatively minor contribution to 

visibility impairment. EPA concurs with 

the Commonwealth’s technical 

demonstration showing that elemental 

carbon, fine soils, and ammonia are not 

significant contributors to visibility in 

the Commonwealth’s Class I area, and 

therefore, finds that Virginia has 

adequately satisfied 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

The emissions sensitivity analyses 

conducted by VISTAS predict that 

reductions in SO2 emissions from EGU 

and non-EGU industrial point sources 

will result in the greatest improvements 

in visibility in the Class I areas in the 

VISTAS region, more than any other 

visibility-impairing pollutant. Specific 

to Virginia, the VISTAS sensitivity 

analysis projects visibility benefits in 

Shenandoah National Park and James 

River Face Wilderness Area from SO2

reductions from EGUs in nearby 

VISTAS states. Additional, smaller 

benefits are projected from SO2

emissions reductions from non-utility 

industrial point sources. SO2 emissions 

contributions to visibility impairment 

from other RPO regions are 

comparatively small in contrast to the 

VISTAS states’ contributions, and, thus, 

controlling sources outside of the 

VISTAS region is predicted to provide 

less significant improvements in 

visibility in the Class I areas in VISTAS. 

Taking the VISTAS sensitivity 

analyses results into consideration, 

Virginia concluded that reducing SO2

emissions from EGU and non-EGU point 

sources in certain VISTAS states, states 

in the Midwest Regional Planning 

Organization and Mid-Atlantic/ 

Northeast Visibility Union (MANE–VU) 

regions, and outside the modeling 

domain would have the greatest 

visibility benefits for the Virginia Class 

I areas. The Commonwealth chose to 

focus solely on evaluating certain SO2

sources contributing to visibility 

impairment to the Commonwealth’s 

Class I areas for additional emissions 

reductions for reasonable progress in 

this first implementation period 

(described in sections V.C.4. and V.C.5. 

of this notice). EPA agrees with the 

Commonwealth’s analyses and 

conclusions used to determine the 

pollutants and source categories that 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3704 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

11Prior to VISTAS, the southern states cooperated 

in a voluntary regional partnership ‘‘to identify and 

recommend reasonable measures to remedy existing 

and prevent future adverse effects from humaninduced air pollution on the air quality related 

values of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.’’ 

States cooperated with FLMs, the EPA, industry, 

environmental organizations, and academia to 

complete a technical assessment of the impacts of 

acid deposition, ozone, and fine particles on 

sensitive resources in the Southern Appalachians. 

The SAMI Final Report was delivered in August 

2002. 

12See also Virginia’s SIP, Appendix H, Table 

7.7.4–2. Units within Virginia with Visibility 

Impairment Contributions of at least 1%. 

most contribute to visibility impairment 

in the Class I area and finds the 

Commonwealth’s approach to focus on 

developing a LTS that includes largely 

additional measures for point sources of 

SO2 emissions to be appropriate. 

SO2 sources for which it is 

demonstrated that no additional 

controls are reasonable in this current 

implementation period will not be 

exempted from future assessments for 

controls in subsequent implementation 

periods or, when appropriate, from the 

five-year periodic SIP reviews. In future 

implementation periods, additional 

controls on these SO2 sources evaluated 

in the first implementation period may 

be determined to be reasonable, based 

on a reasonable progress control 

evaluation, for continued progress 

toward natural conditions for the 20 

percent worst days and to avoid further 

degradation of the 20 percent best days. 

Similarly, in subsequent 

implementation periods, the 

Commonwealth may use different 

criteria for identifying sources for 

evaluation and may consider other 

pollutants as visibility conditions 

change over time. 

4. Procedure for Identifying Sources To 

Evaluate for Reasonable Progress 

Controls in Virginia and Surrounding 

Areas 

As discussed in section V.C.3. of this 

notice, through comprehensive 

evaluations by VISTAS and the 

Southern Appalachian Mountains 

Initiative (SAMI),11 the VISTAS states 

concluded that sulfate particles 

resulting from SO2 emissions account 

for the greatest portion of the regional 

haze affecting the Class I areas in 

VISTAS states, including those in 

Virginia. Utility and non-utility boilers 

are the main sources of SO2 emissions 

within the southeastern United States. 

VISTAS developed a methodology for 

Virginia, which enabled the 

Commonwealth to focus its reasonable 

progress analysis on those geographic 

regions and source categories that 

impact visibility at its Class I areas. 

Recognizing that there was neither 

sufficient time nor adequate resources 

available to evaluate all emissions units 

within a given area of influence (AOI) 

around each Class I area that Virginia’s 

sources impact, the Commonwealth 

established a threshold to determine 

which emissions units would be 

evaluated for reasonable progress 

control. In applying this methodology, 

VADEQ first calculated the fractional 

contribution to visibility impairment 

from all emissions units within the SO2

AOI for its Class I areas, and those 

surrounding areas in other states 

potentially impacted by emissions from 

emissions units in Virginia. The 

Commonwealth then identified those 

emissions units with a contribution of 

one percent or more to the visibility 

impairment at that particular Class I 

area, and evaluated each of these units 

for control measures for reasonable 

progress, using the following four 

‘‘reasonable progress factors’’ as 

required under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (i) Cost of 

compliance; (ii) time necessary for 

compliance; (iii) energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (iv) remaining useful 

life of the emissions unit. 

Virginia’s SO2 AOI methodology 

captured 44.3 percent of the total point 

source SO2 contribution to visibility 

impairment in the Shenandoah Class I 

area, and required an evaluation of 18 

emissions units (5 of which are located 

in Virginia). The AOI methodology 

captured 49.9 percent of the total point 

source SO2 contribution to visibility 

impairment in the James River Face 

Class I area, and required an evaluation 

of 12 emission units (8 of which are 

located in Virginia). Capturing a 

significantly greater percentage of the 

total contribution would involve an 

evaluation of many more emissions 

units that have substantially less 

impact. EPA believes the approach 

developed by VISTAS and implemented 

for the Class I areas in Virginia is a 

reasonable methodology to prioritize the 

most significant contributors to regional 

haze and to identify sources to assess for 

reasonable progress control in the 

Commonwealth’s Class I areas. The 

approach is consistent with EPA’s 

Reasonable Progress Guidance. The 

technical approach of VISTAS and 

Virginia was objective and based on 

several analyses, which included a large 

universe of emissions units within and 

surrounding the Commonwealth of 

Virginia and all of the 18 VISTAS Class 

I areas. It also included an analysis of 

the VISTAS emissions units affecting 

nearby Class I areas surrounding the 

VISTAS states that are located in other 

RPOs’ Class I areas. 

5. Application of the Four CAA Factors 

in the Reasonable Progress Analysis 

VADEQ identified 11 facilities in 

Virginia (see Table 4) with SO2

emissions that were above the 

Commonwealth’s minimum threshold 

for reasonable progress evaluation 

because they were modeled to fall 

within the sulfate AOI of any Class I 

area and have a one percent or greater 

contribution to the sulfate visibility 

impairment to at least one Class I area.12

TABLE 4—VIRGINIA FACILITIES SUBJECT TO REASONABLE PROGRESS

ANALYSIS

Facilities With a Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress Analysis: 

International Paper Company, power boiler 

#7. 

MeadWestvaco, single stack for boilers 

#6–9. 

Roanoke Cement Company, kiln #5. 

Georgia Pacific—Big Island, boiler #4. 

Mohawk Industries, boiler #7. 

Celanese Acetate, LLC, boilers #1–7. 

EGU Unit(s) Subject to Reasonable Progress 

Analysis: 

AEP-Clinch River, point ID 1, 2, 3. 

AEP-Glyn Lyn, point ID 3. 

Dominion-Bremo, point ID 1, 2. 

Dominion-Possum Point, point ID 5. 

Dominon-Chesterfield, point ID 6, 8. 

The Commonwealth also included 

appropriate documentation in its SIP of 

the technical analysis it used to assess 

the need for and implementation of 

reasonable progress controls. VADEQ 

analyzed whether SO2 controls should 

be required for the facilities subject to 

reasonable progress based on a 

consideration of the four factors set out 

in the CAA and EPA’s regulations. For 

the limited purpose of evaluating the 

cost of compliance for the reasonable 

progress assessment in this first regional 

haze SIP for the non-EGUs, VADEQ 

concluded that it was not equitable to 

require non-EGUs to bear a greater 

economic burden than EGUs for a given 

control strategy. Using CAIR as a guide, 

VADEQ used a cost of $2,000 per ton of 

SO2 controlled or reduced as a threshold 

for cost effectiveness. Although the use 

of a specific threshold for assessing 

costs means that a state may not fully 

consider available emissions reduction 

measures above its threshold that would 

result in meaningful visibility 

improvement, EPA believes that the 

Virginia SIP still ensures reasonable 

progress. In proposing to approve 

Virginia’s reasonable progress analysis, 

EPA is placing great weight on the fact 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3705 

13Note that our reference to CALPUFF 

encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, 

which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 

CALPOST models and other pre and post 

processors. The different versions of CALPUFF 

have corresponding versions of CALMET, 

CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with 

previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer 

version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 

older version of CALPUFF). The different versions 

of the CALPUFF modeling system are available 

from the model developer on the following Web 

site: http://www.src.com/verio/download/ 

download.htm. 

that there is no indication in the SIP 

submittal that Virginia, as a result of 

using a specific cost effectiveness 

threshold, rejected potential reasonable 

progress measures that would have had 

a meaningful impact on visibility in its 

Class I areas. EPA notes that given the 

emissions reductions resulting from 

CAIR, Virginia’s BART determinations, 

and the measures in nearby states, the 

visibility improvements projected for 

the affected Class I area are in excess of 

that needed to be on the uniform rate of 

progress glidepath. After the 

Commonwealth submitted its regional 

haze SIP on October 4, 2010, 

demonstrating that no additional 

controls on non-EGU sources identified 

in the AOI were reasonable because it 

was economically and/or technically 

infeasible, Virginia did additional 

analysis and found that a higher 

efficiency of control was reasonable at 

the MeadWestvaco Corporation. VADEQ 

submitted, on May 6, 2011, a permit to 

incorporate the additional 15 percent 

control for MeadWestvaco Corporation 

for achieving additional reasonable 

progress into their regional haze SIP. 

6. BART 

BART is an element of Virginia’s LTS 

for the first implementation period. The 

BART evaluation process consists of 

three components: (a) An identification 

of all the BART-eligible sources, (b) an 

assessment of whether the BARTeligible sources are subject to BART and 

(c) a determination of the BART 

controls. These components, as 

addressed by VADEQ and VADEQ’s 

findings, are discussed below. 

a. BART-Eligible Sources 

The first phase of a BART evaluation 

is to identify all the BART-eligible 

sources within the Commonwealth’s 

boundaries. VADEQ identified the 

BART-eligible sources in Virginia by 

utilizing the three eligibility criteria in 

the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158) and 

EPA’s regulations (40 CFR 51.301): (1) 

One or more emissions units at the 

facility fit within one of the 26 

categories listed in the BART 

Guidelines; (2) the emissions units were 

not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, 

and was in existence on August 7, 1977; 

and (3) these units have the potential to 

emit 250 tons or more per year of any 

visibility-impairing pollutant. 

The BART Guidelines also direct 

states to address SO2, NOX and direct 

PM (including both PM10 and PM2.5) 

emissions as visibility-impairment 

pollutants, and to exercise judgment in 

determining whether VOC or ammonia 

emissions from a source impair 

visibility in an area. See 70 FR 39160. 

VISTAS modeling demonstrated that 

VOC from anthropogenic sources and 

ammonia from point sources are not 

significant visibility-impairing 

pollutants in Virginia, as discussed in 

section V.C.3. of this action. VADEQ has 

determined, based on the VISTAS 

modeling, that ammonia emissions from 

the Commonwealth’s point sources are 

not anticipated to cause or contribute 

significantly to any impairment of 

visibility in Class I areas and should be 

exempt for BART purposes. 

b. BART-Subject Sources 

The second phase of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area, 

i.e., those sources that are subject to 

BART. The BART Guidelines allow 

states to consider exempting some 

BART-eligible sources from further 

BART review because they may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Consistent with the 

BART Guidelines, Virginia required 

each of its BART-eligible sources to 

develop and submit dispersion 

modeling to assess the extent of their 

contribution to visibility impairment at 

surrounding Class I areas. 

1. Modeling Methodology 

The BART Guidelines allow states to 

use the CALPUFF 13 modeling system 

(CALPUFF) or another appropriate 

model to predict the visibility impacts 

from a single source on a Class I area, 

and therefore, to determine whether an 

individual source is anticipated to cause 

or contribute to impairment of visibility 

in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to 

BART.’’ The Guidelines state that EPA 

believes that CALPUFF is the best 

regulatory modeling application 

currently available for predicting a 

single source’s contribution to visibility 

impairment. See 70 FR 39162. Virginia, 

in coordination with VISTAS, used the 

CALPUFF modeling system to 

determine whether individual sources 

in Virginia were subject to or exempt 

from BART. 

The BART Guidelines also 

recommend that states develop a 

modeling protocol for making 

individual source attributions and 

suggest that states may want to consult 

with EPA and their RPO to address any 

issues prior to modeling. The VISTAS 

states, including Virginia, developed a 

‘‘Protocol for the Application of 

CALPUFF for BART Analyses.’’ 

Stakeholders, including EPA, FLMs, 

industrial sources, trade groups, and 

other interested parties, actively 

participated in the development and 

review of the VISTAS protocol. VISTAS 

developed a post-processing approach 

to use the new IMPROVE equation with 

the CALPUFF model results so that the 

BART analyses could consider both the 

old and new IMPROVE equations. 

2. Contribution Threshold 

For states using modeling to 

determine the applicability of BART to 

single sources, the BART Guidelines 

note that the first step is to set a 

contribution threshold to assess whether 

the impact of a single source is 

sufficient to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at a Class I area. 

The BART Guidelines state that, ‘‘A 

single source that is responsible for a 1.0 

deciview change or more should be 

considered to ‘cause’ visibility 

impairment.’’ The BART Guidelines 

also state that ‘‘the appropriate 

threshold for determining whether a 

source ‘contributes to visibility 

impairment’ may reasonably differ 

across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general 

matter, any threshold that you use for 

determining whether a source 

‘contributes’ to visibility impairment 

should not be higher than 0.5 

deciviews.’’ The BART Guidelines 

affirm that states are free to use a lower 

threshold if they conclude that the 

location of a large number of BARTeligible sources in proximity of a Class 

I area justifies this approach. 

Virginia used a contribution threshold 

of 0.5 deciview for determining which 

sources are subject to BART. Virginia 

concluded that, considering the results 

of the visibility impacts modeling 

conducted, a 0.5 deciview threshold 

was appropriate and a lower threshold 

was not warranted since the majority of 

the visibility impacts were well below 

0.5 deciview and the sources are 

distributed across the Commonwealth. 

Also, even though several sources 

impacted each Class I area, the overall 

visibility impacts were low from the 

sources. As stated in the BART 

Guidelines, where a state concludes that 

a large number of these BART-eligible 

sources within proximity of a Class I 

area justify a lower threshold, it may 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3706 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

14EGUs were only evaluated for PM emissions. 

The Commonwealth relied on CAIR to satisfy BART 

for SO2 and NOX for its EGUs subject to CAIR, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Thus, SO2

and NOX were not analyzed. 

warrant establishing a lower 

contribution threshold. See 70 FR 

39161–39162, July 6, 2005. EPA is 

proposing to agree with Virginia that the 

overall impacts of these sources are not 

sufficient to warrant a lower 

contribution threshold and that a 0.5 

deciview threshold was appropriate in 

this instance. 

3. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

Virginia initially identified 13 

facilities with BART-eligible sources. 

Three of these are EGUs and ten are 

non-EGU sources. The Commonwealth 

subsequently determined that all three 

EGUs and seven of the non-EGU sources 

are exempt from being considered 

BART-subject. Table 5 identifies the 13 

BART-eligible sources located in 

Virginia, and of these, lists the three 

non-EGU sources subject to BART. 

TABLE 5—VIRGINIA BART–ELIGIBLE

AND SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES

Facilities With Unit(s) Subject to BART Analysis: 

O–N Minerals Global Chemstone Operation. 

MeadWestvaco Packaging Resource 

Group. 

Georgia Pacific Corp Big Island Plant. 

Facilities With Unit(s) Found Not Subject to 

BART: 

EGU CAIR and BART Modeling (PM only) 

Exempt Sources: 14

Dominion Virginia Power—Chesterfield. 

Dominion—Yorktown. 

Dominion Virginia Power—Possum 

Point. 

Non-EGU BART Modeling: 

Island Creek Coal Co./Virginia Pocahontas Mine. 

Chemical Lime Company—Kimballton 

Plant. 

Intermet Foundry Archer Creek. 

Stone Container Corporation (D/B/A 

Smurfit Stone). 

Honeywell Nylon LLC—Hopewell. 

International Paper Company. 

Duke Energy. 

All but three of the non-EGU sources 

demonstrated that they are not subject 

to BART by showing through modeling 

less than a 0.5 deciview visibility 

impact at the affected Class I areas. This 

modeling involved assessing the 

visibility impact of emissions of NOX, 

SO2, and PM10 as applicable to 

individual facilities. The three sources 

that were not able to model an 

exemption from BART are listed in 

Table 5 above. 

For the three BART-eligible EGUs, 

Virginia relied upon CAIR emission 

limits for SO2 and NOX to satisfy the 

obligation to comply with the BART 

requirements in accordance with 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(4). Therefore, EGU 

sources only modeled PM10 emissions, 

including all PM smaller than 10 

microns (e.g., PM2.5). All of the EGUs 

demonstrated that their PM10 emissions 

do not contribute to visibility 

impairment in any Class I area. 

Prior to the remand of CAIR, the 

Commonwealth’s reliance on CAIR to 

satisfy BART for NOX and SO2 for 

affected CAIR EGUs was fully 

approvable and in accordance with 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(4). However, as explained 

in section IV of this notice, given the 

status of CAIR, EPA is proposing to find 

that Virginia may not rely on CAIR to 

provide reductions to satisfy the BART 

requirements of the regional haze 

program. Although CAIR is in force 

once again following the court’s order 

staying the Transport Rule, it will not 

remain in effect indefinitely. EPA 

proposes today to issue a limited 

approval and a limited disapproval of 

the Commonwealth’s regional haze SIP 

revision. 

c. BART Determinations for non-EGU 

Sources 

In accordance with the BART 

Guidelines, to determine the level of 

control that represents BART for each of 

the three non-EGU BART-subject 

sources, the state first reviewed existing 

controls on these units to assess 

whether these constituted the best 

controls currently available, then 

identified what other technically 

feasible controls are available, and 

finally, evaluated the technically 

feasible controls using the five BART 

statutory factors. Virginia’s evaluations 

and conclusions, and EPA’s assessment, 

are summarized below. 

The O–N Mineral permit was 

submitted as a SIP revision by VADEQ 

on January 14, 2010 and an amendment 

was submitted on November 19, 2010, 

to establish BART emission limits, 

monitoring, and record keeping 

requirements for the O–N Mineral 

Facility. VADEQ determined that BART 

is the permanent shutdown of the 

calcimatic kiln (U–12) and limits for 

SO2 are 0.29 pounds per tons stone feed 

(lbs/tsf) and 14.7 pounds per hour (lbs/ 

hr), NOX limits are 1.74 lbs/tsf and 87.0 

lbs/hr with the average of a 3 hour 

sampling period, and PM limits are 

0.12lbs/tsf and 6.0lbs/hr with the 

average of a 3 hour sampling period for 

the rotary kiln (U–5). The compliance 

date for these BART controls for O–N 

Minerals is 180 days after August 6, 

2010. Once the BART limits are 

established, the source is then required 

by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(v) to maintain 

the control equipment required and 

establish procedures to ensure such 

equipment is properly operated and 

maintained. 

The MeadWestvaco permit was 

submitted by VADEQ on March 6, 2009. 

MeadWestvaco has four units that are 

BART-subject. These units are two 

power boilers, number 9 and 10, 

recovery furnace number 1, and smelt 

dissolving tank number 1. The number 

9 boiler limit is a combined emission 

limit for boilers number 6 through 9 

because all four boilers emit through a 

single stack. The limits for nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) are 8242.1 lbs/hr and 

1,060 tons per year (tpy), for SO2 the 

limits are 1,831 lbs/hr and 8,020 tpy, 

and for PM10 the limits are 166.4 lbs/hr 

and 728.9 tpy. The emission limits for 

power boiler number 10 are a fuel 

restriction of at least 90 percent natural 

gas utilization for SO2, 66.0 lbs/hr of 

NOX, and 2.51 lbs/hr of PM. The 

emission limits for recovery furnace 

number 1 for SO2 are 713.7 lbs/hr, for 

NOX the limits are 211.2 lbs/hr, for PM 

the emission limits are 150.0 lbs/hr, 

85.0 lbs/hr on an annual average, and 

350 tpy, and for PM10 the emission 

limits are 103.8 lbs/hr, 58.8 lbs/hr on an 

annual average and 242 tpy. The 

emission limits for the smelt dissolving 

tank for SO2 are 14.8 lbs/hr and 64.8 

tpy, for PM the limits are 14.1 lbs/hr 

and 58.0 tpy, and for PM10 the limits are 

12.6 lbs/hr and 51.9 tpy. As a part of the 

BART determination process Virginia 

determined that MeadWestvaco could 

get an additional 15 percent SO2

reduction, which would be an 

additional RPG reduction. The new SO2

limit for MeadWestvaco boilers number 

6 through 9 submitted by VADEQ on 

May 6, 2011 is 1,556 lbs/hr and 6,817 

tpy. MeadWestvaco must comply with 

the RPG limit by January 1, 2016. 

The Georgia Pacific—Big Island 

permit was submitted by VADEQ on 

July 17, 2008. Georgia Pacific—Big 

Island has two power boilers (numbers 

4 and 5) that are BART-subject. The 

emission limits for power boiler number 

4 for SO2 are 50 lbs/hr and 219 tpy, the 

limits for NOX are 169 lbs/hr and 740.2 

tpy, and the limits for PM10 are 0.07 

pounds per one million British thermal 

unit (lbs/MMBtu), 19.9 lbs/hr and 87 

tpy. The effective date for the emission 

limits of power boiler number 4 is June 

12, 2008 for NOX and PM10. The 

effective date for the SO2 emission 

limits of power boiler number 4 is 180 

days after scrubber is installed for the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3707 

15Many of the CAIR states without Class I areas 

similarly relied on CAIR emission reductions 

within the state to address some or all of their 

contribution to visibility impairment in other states’ 

Class I areas, which the impacted Class I area 

state(s) used to set the RPGs for their Class I area(s). 

Certain surrounding non-CAIR states also relied on 

reductions due to CAIR in nearby states to develop 

their regional haze SIP submittals. 

hourly limit and July 1, 2013 or 13 

months after the scrubber performance 

test for the annual limit. The emission 

limits for power boiler number 5 for SO2

are 485.1 lbs/hr and 374.0 tpy, the limits 

for NOX are 139.3 lbs/hr and 610.1 tpy, 

and the limits for PM10 are 0.07 lbs/ 

MMBtu, 23.7 lbs/hr and 103.9 tpy. The 

effective date for the emission limits of 

power boiler number 5 is 12 months 

after June, 12, 2008. 

EPA agrees with VADEQ’s analyses 

and conclusions for the BART emission 

units located at the O–N Mineral, 

MeadWestvaco, and Georgia Pacific— 

Big Island facilities. EPA has reviewed 

the Virginia analyses and concluded 

they were conducted in a manner that 

is consistent with EPA’s BART 

Guidelines. EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s submittals meet the 

requirements of section 169A(g)(2) of 

the CAA to consider available 

technology, the cost of compliance, the 

energy and nonair quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, 

any pollution control equipment in use 

at the source, the remaining useful life 

of the source, and the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. Therefore, 

the conclusions reflect a reasonable 

application of EPA’s guidance to these 

sources. 

The BART determinations for each of 

the facilities discussed above and the 

resulting BART emission limits were 

adopted by Virginia into its regional 

haze SIP. VADEQ incorporated the 

BART emission limits into state 

operating permits, and submitted these 

permits individually, as part the 

Commonwealth’s regional haze SIP. The 

BART units in Virginia (O–N Minerals, 

MeadWestvaco, and Georgia Pacific— 

Big Island) are required to comply with 

these emission limits no later than five 

years after publication in the Federal 

Register of EPA’s final approval of the 

Virginia regional haze SIP, to allow time 

for needed operational changes. 

7. RPGs 

The RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) 

requires states to establish RPGs for 

each Class I area within the state 

(expressed in deciviews) that provide 

for reasonable progress towards 

achieving natural visibility. VISTAS 

modeled visibility improvements under 

existing Federal and state regulations for 

the period 2004–2018, and additional 

control measures which the VISTAS 

states planned to implement in the first 

implementation period. At the time of 

VISTAS modeling, some of the other 

states with sources potentially 

impacting visibility at the Virginia Class 

I areas had not yet made final control 

determinations for BART and/or 

reasonable progress, and thus, these 

controls were not included in the 

modeling submitted by Virginia. Any 

controls resulting from those 

determinations will provide additional 

emissions reductions and resulting 

visibility improvement, which give 

further assurances that Virginia will 

achieve its RPGs. This modeling 

demonstrates that the 2018 base control 

scenario provides for an improvement 

in visibility better than the uniform rate 

of progress for the Virginia Class I areas 

for the most impaired days over the 

period of the implementation plan and 

ensures no degradation in visibility for 

the least impaired days over the same 

period. 

As shown in Table 6 below, Virginia’s 

2018 RPG for the 20 percent worst days 

provides greater visibility improvement 

by 2018 than the uniform rate of 

progress for the Commonwealth’s Class 

I areas (i.e., 26.64 deciviews in 2018). 

Also, the RPG for the 20 percent best 

days provides greater visibility 

improvement by 2018 than current best 

day conditions. The modeling 

supporting the analysis of these RPGs is 

consistent with EPA guidance prior to 

the CAIR remand. The regional haze 

provisions specify that a state may not 

adopt a RPG that represents less 

visibility improvement than is expected 

to result from other CAA requirements 

during the implementation period. See 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi). Therefore, the 

CAIR states with Class I areas, like 

Virginia, took into account emissions 

reductions anticipated from CAIR in 

determining their 2018 RPGs.15

TABLE 6—VIRGINIA 2018 RPGS

[In deciviews] 

Class I area 

Baseline visibility—20% 

worst days 

2018 RPG— 

20% worst 

days (improvement from 

baseline) 

Uniform rate of 

progress at 

2018—20% 

worst days 

(improvement 

from baseline) 

Baseline visibility—20% 

best days 

2018 RPG— 

20% best days 

(improvement 

from baseline) 

Shenandoah National Park .................................................. 29.3 21.9 (7.4) 25.1 (4.2) 10.9 8.7 (2.2) 

James River Face Wilderness Area .................................... 29.1 22.4 (6.7) 24.9 (4.2) 14.2 12.4 (1.8) 

The RPGs for the Class I areas in 

Virginia are based on modeled 

projections of future conditions that 

were developed using the best available 

information at the time the analysis was 

done. These projections can be expected 

to change as additional information 

regarding future conditions becomes 

available. For example, new sources 

may be built, existing sources may shut 

down or modify production in response 

to changed economic circumstances, 

and facilities may change their emission 

characteristics as they install control 

equipment to comply with new rules. It 

would be both impractical and resourceintensive to require a state to 

continually revise its RPGs every time 

an event affecting these future 

projections changed. 

Virginia submitted a revision on May 

6, 2011 requiring an additional 

reduction from MeadWestvaco for 

reasonable progress. The RPG is an 

additional 15 percent control of SO2

beyond the BART emission limit from 

boilers number 6 through 9. This 

additional reduction of SO2 is required 

to be implemented by January 1, 2016. 

The revised emission limits have been 

incorporated into the Commonwealth’s 

operating permit. 

EPA recognized the problems of a 

rigid requirement to meet a long-term 

goal based on modeled projections of 

future visibility conditions, and 

addressed the uncertainties associated 

with RPGs in several ways. EPA made 

clear in the RHR that the RPG is not a 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3708 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

mandatory standard that must be 

achieved by a particular date. See 64 FR 

35733. At the same time, EPA 

established a requirement for a 

midcourse review and, if necessary, 

correction of the states’ regional haze 

plans. See 40 CFR 52.308(g). In 

particular, the RHR calls for a five-year 

progress review after submittal of the 

initial regional haze plan. The purpose 

of this progress review is to assess the 

effectiveness of emission management 

strategies in meeting the RPG and to 

provide an assessment of whether 

current implementation strategies are 

sufficient for the state or affected states 

to meet their RPGs. If a state concludes, 

based on its assessment, that the RPGs 

for a Class I area will not be met, the 

RHR requires the state to take 

appropriate action. See 40 CFR 

52.308(h). The nature of the appropriate 

action will depend on the basis for the 

state’s conclusion that the current 

strategies are insufficient to meet the 

RPGs. Virginia specifically committed to 

follow this process in the LTS portion 

of its submittal. 

EPA anticipates that since the 

Transport Rule will result in greater 

emission reductions overall than CAIR, 

implementation of the Transport Rule 

will also result in similar or better 

improvements in visibility than 

predicted from CAIR. By the time 

Virginia is required to undertake its 

five-year progress review, however, it is 

likely that the impact of the Transport 

Rule and other measures on visibility 

can be meaningfully assessed. If meeting 

the RPGs at its Class I Federal area is in 

jeopardy, the Commonwealth will be 

required to address this circumstance in 

its five-year review. Accordingly, EPA 

proposes to approve Virginia’s RPGs for 

the Shenandoah National Park and 

James River Face Wilderness Area. 

D. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

EPA’s visibility regulations direct 

states to coordinate their RAVI LTS and 

monitoring provisions with those for 

regional haze, as explained in sections 

III.F and III.G. of this action. Under 

EPA’s RAVI regulations, the RAVI 

portion of a state SIP must address any 

integral vistas identified by the FLMs 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. An integral 

vista is defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a 

‘‘view perceived from within the 

mandatory Class I Federal area of a 

specific landmark or panorama located 

outside the boundary of the mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ Visibility in any 

mandatory Class I Federal area includes 

any integral vista associated with that 

area. The FLMs did not identify any 

integral vistas in Virginia. In addition, 

the Class I area in Virginia is neither 

experiencing RAVI, nor are any of its 

sources affected by the RAVI provisions. 

Thus, the October 4, 2010, Virginia 

regional haze SIP submittal does not 

explicitly address the two requirements 

regarding coordination of the regional 

haze with the RAVI LTS and monitoring 

provisions. However, Virginia 

previously made a commitment to 

address RAVI should the FLM certify 

visibility impairment from an 

individual source. EPA finds that this 

regional haze submittal appropriately 

supplements and augments Virginia’s 

RAVI visibility provisions to address 

regional haze by updating the 

monitoring and LTS provisions as 

summarized below in this section. 

In the October 4, 2010 submittal, 

VADEQ updated its visibility 

monitoring program and developed a 

LTS to address regional haze. Also in 

this submittal, VADEQ affirmed its 

commitment to complete items required 

in the future under EPA’s RHR. 

Specifically, VADEQ made a 

commitment to review and revise its 

regional haze implementation plan and 

submit a plan revision to EPA by July 

31, 2018, and every 10 years thereafter. 

See 40 CFR 51.308(f). In accordance 

with the requirements listed in 40 CFR 

51.308(g) of EPA’s regional haze 

regulations and 40 CFR 51.306(c) of the 

RAVI LTS regulations, VADEQ made a 

commitment to submit a report to EPA 

on progress towards the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I area located within 

Virginia and in each mandatory Class I 

area located outside Virginia which may 

be affected by emissions from within 

Virginia. The progress report is required 

to be in the form of a SIP revision and 

is due every five years following the 

initial submittal of the regional haze 

SIP. Consistent with EPA’s monitoring 

regulations for RAVI and regional haze, 

Virginia will rely on the IMPROVE 

network for compliance purposes, in 

addition to any RAVI monitoring that 

may be needed in the future. See 40 CFR 

51.305, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4). Also, the 

Virginia new source review (NSR) rules, 

previously approved in the 

Commonwealth’s SIP, continue to 

provide a framework for review and 

coordination with the FLMs on new 

sources which may have an adverse 

impact on visibility in either form (i.e., 

RAVI and/or regional haze) in any Class 

I Federal area. The Virginia SIP contains 

a plan addressing the associated 

monitoring and reporting requirements. 

See 53 FR 26256, July 12, 1988. 

Although EPA’s approval of this plan 

neglected to remove the Federally 

promulgated provisions set forth in 40 

CFR 52.936, EPA intends to correct this 

omission in a separate future 

rulemaking. 

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

The primary monitoring network for 

regional haze in Virginia is the 

IMPROVE network. As discussed in 

section V.B.2. of this notice, there are 

currently two IMPROVE sites in 

Virginia, which serve as the monitoring 

sites for Shenandoah National Park and 

James River Face Wilderness Area in 

Virginia. 

IMPROVE monitoring data from 

2000–2004 serves as the baseline for the 

regional haze program, and is relied 

upon in the Virginia regional haze 

submittal. In the submittal, Virginia 

states its intention to rely on the 

IMPROVE network for complying with 

the regional haze monitoring 

requirement in EPA’s RHR for the 

current and future regional haze 

implementation periods. Data produced 

by the IMPROVE monitoring network 

will be used nearly continuously for 

preparing the five-year progress reports 

and the 10-year SIP revisions, each of 

which relies on analysis of the 

preceding five years of data. The 

Visibility Information Exchange Web 

System (VIEWS) Web site has been 

maintained by VISTAS and the other 

RPOs to provide ready access to the 

IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. 

Virginia is encouraging VISTAS and the 

other RPOs to maintain the VIEWS or a 

similar data management system to 

facilitate analysis of the IMPROVE data. 

In addition to the IMPROVE 

measurements, the FLMs perform longterm limited monitoring that provides 

additional insight into progress toward 

regional haze goals. Also, VADEQ 

operates a comprehensive PM2.5

network of filter-based Federal reference 

method monitors, continuous mass 

monitors, and filter-based speciated 

monitors. 

F. Consultation With States and FLMs 

1. Consultation With Other States 

In December 2006 and in May 2007, 

the State Air Directors from the VISTAS 

states held formal interstate 

consultation meetings. The purpose of 

the meetings was to discuss the 

methodology proposed by VISTAS for 

identifying sources to evaluate for 

reasonable progress. The states invited 

FLM and EPA representatives to 

participate and to provide additional 

feedback. The Directors discussed the 

results of analyses showing 

contributions to visibility impairment 

from states to each of the Class I areas 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3709 

in the VISTAS region. VADEQ has 

evaluated the impact of sources on Class 

I areas in neighboring states. The state 

in which a Class I area is located is 

responsible for determining which 

sources, both inside and outside of that 

state, to evaluate for reasonable progress 

controls. Because many of these states 

had not yet defined their criteria for 

identifying sources to evaluate for 

reasonable progress, VADEQ applied its 

AOI methodology to identify sources in 

the Commonwealth that have emissions 

units with impacts large enough to 

potentially warrant further evaluation 

and analysis. The Commonwealth 

identified five emissions units in 

Virginia with a contribution of one 

percent or more to the visibility 

impairment at Class I areas in 

neighboring states. 

Regarding the impact of sources 

outside of the Commonwealth on the 

Class I areas in Virginia, VADEQ sent 

letters to Maryland, North Carolina, and 

West Virginia pertaining to emissions 

units within these states that the 

Commonwealth believes contributed 

one percent or higher to visibility 

impairment in the Virginia Class I areas. 

Virginia identified three facilities in 

Maryland (Westvaco/Luke Plant, 

Eastalco Aluminum, and Mirant MidAtlantic), one facility in North Carolina 

(Duke Energy Dan River Steam Station), 

and four facilities in West Virginia 

(Capital Cement Corporation, DominionMount Storm, Monogahela-Harrison, 

and Appalachian Power-John E. Amos) 

as meeting its SO2 AOI contribution 

threshold. VADEQ opted not to request 

any additional emissions reductions for 

reasonable progress from North Carolina 

during the first implementation period. 

Responses from the neighboring states 

can be found in Virginia’s Appendix J 

of the October 4, 2010 submittal. Any 

controls resulting from those will 

provide additional emissions reductions 

and resulting visibility improvement, 

which gives further assurances that 

Virginia will achieve its RPGs. 

Therefore, to be conservative, Virginia 

opted not to rely on any additional 

emissions reductions from sources 

located outside the Commonwealth’s 

boundaries beyond those already 

identified in Virginia’s regional haze SIP 

submittal and as discussed in section 

V.C.1. (Federal and state controls in 

place by 2018) of this action. 

Virginia received letters from the 

MANE–VU RPO States of New Jersey 

and New Hampshire in the Spring of 

2007, stating that they wish to have 

further consultation with Virginia about 

visibility impairment to Class I areas in 

those states. MANE–VU met with 

VISTAS states on August 20, 2007 in 

Atlanta, Georgia and presented their 

‘‘asks’’ which are the RPGs for the 

MANE–VU Class I Areas. As part of its 

‘‘asks,’’ the MANE–VU states identified 

167 EGU stacks that impact their Class 

I areas the most requested states to 

implement a 90 percent control 

efficiency for SO2 on those stacks. The 

MANE–VU states identified 10 EGU 

stacks in Virginia as a part of the 167 

EGU stacks. It also requested a control 

strategy to provide a 28 percent 

reduction in SO2 emissions from 

sources other than EGUs that would be 

equivalent to MANE–VU’s proposed 

low sulfur fuel oil strategy. Of the 

Virginia EGUs identified by MANE–VU, 

82 percent of those sources have 

existing SO2 controls or will have SO2

controls by 2018 or sooner. 

VISTAS modeling showed that no 

Virginia stack contributes more than 1 

percent or more to the calculated 

visibility impairment to the Brigantine 

Class I area in contrast to the MANE–VU 

modeling. Virginia’s non-EGUs are 

predicted to emit 57,790 tons of SO2 in 

2018. MANE–VU requested a 28 percent 

reduction in these emissions, or 

approximately 16,181 tons. Two EGUs 

in Virginia not on the MANE–VU listing 

of 167 stacks already have enforceable 

conditions in place that will provide 

reductions of 16,900 tons of SO2

satisfying the non-EGU reductions 

requested by MANE–VU. VADEQ 

believes that these emissions reductions 

satisfy MANE–VU’s request. 

EPA finds that Virginia has 

adequately addressed the consultation 

requirements in the RHR and 

appropriately documented its 

consultation with other states in its SIP 

submittal. See Appendix J of Virginia’s 

October 4, 2010 submittal for state 

letters and the Commonwealth’s 

responses and Appendix D for specific 

emission inventories. 

2. Consultation With the FLMs 

Through the VISTAS RPO, Virginia 

and the nine other member states 

worked extensively with the FLMs from 

the U.S. Departments of the Interior and 

Agriculture to develop technical 

analyses that support the regional haze 

SIPs for the VISTAS states. VADEQ also 

provided a draft plan dated October 1, 

2007, to the FLMs (and EPA) for review. 

Appendix J of the Virginia regional haze 

SIP submittal includes the comment 

letters from the FLMs, which indicate 

that the FLMs appear to be generally 

supportive of the Commonwealth’s 

regional haze SIP, and were pleased 

with the technical information 

summarized in the regional haze SIP 

narrative. The FLM comments mainly 

suggested that Virginia insert language 

to further expand and/or clarify certain 

information. For example, the FLMs 

requested that VADEQ discuss the 

linkage between the LTS and the 

Commonwealth’s NSR/PSD program in 

the SIP narrative. Additionally, the 

FLMs asked VADEQ to reiterate 

statements in the appendices regarding 

the conclusions of interstate 

consultation discussions in the SIP 

narrative. The FLMs also suggested that 

emission inventory data from 2002 in 

the SIP narrative be put with the 

projection data for 2009 and 2018 to aid 

the reader with understanding the 

anticipated effects of Virginia’s LTS. To 

address the requirement for continuing 

consultation procedures with the FLMs 

under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), VADEQ 

made a commitment in the SIP to 

ongoing consultation with the FLMs on 

regional haze issues throughout 

implementation of its plan, including 

annual discussions. VADEQ also affirms 

in the SIP that FLM consultation is 

required for those sources subject to the 

Commonwealth’s NSR regulations. 

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

As also summarized in section V.D. of 

this action, consistent with 40 CFR 

51.308(g), VADEQ affirmed its 

commitment to submitting a progress 

report in the form of a SIP revision to 

EPA every five years following this 

initial submittal of the Virginia regional 

haze SIP. The report will evaluate the 

progress made towards the RPGs for the 

mandatory Class I areas located within 

Virginia and in each mandatory Class I 

area located outside Virginia that may 

be affected by emissions from within 

Virginia. Virginia also offered 

recommendations for several technical 

improvements that, as funding allows, 

can support the Commonwealth’s next 

LTS. These recommendations are 

discussed in detail in the Virginia 

submittal in Appendix K. If another 

state’s regional haze SIP identifies that 

Virginia’s SIP needs to be supplemented 

or modified, and if, after appropriate 

consultation Virginia agrees, today’s 

action may be revisited, or additional 

information and/or changes will be 

addressed in the five-year progress 

report SIP revision. 

VI. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3710 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information (1) 

that are generated or developed before 

the commencement of a voluntary 

environmental assessment; (2) that are 

prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) that demonstrate 

a clear, imminent and substantial 

danger to the public health or 

environment; or (4) that are required by 

law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal counterparts 

* * * . ’’ The opinion concludes that 

‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore, 

documents or other information needed 

for civil or criminal enforcement under 

one of these programs could not be 

privileged because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

VII. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing a limited approval 

and a limited disapproval of the 

revisions to the Virginia SIP submitted 

by the Commonwealth of Virginia on 

July 17, 2008, March 6, 2009, January 

14, 2010, October 4, 2010, November 19, 

2010, and May 6, 2011, as meeting some 

of the applicable regional haze 

requirements as set forth in sections 

169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 

CFR 51.300–308, as described 

previously in this action. The limited 

disapproval is only in regard to the SIP 

revisions’ reliance on CAIR as an 

alternative to BART for SO2 and NOX

emissions from EGUs and as a part of its 

long-term strategy. EPA has proposed in 

a separate notice a FIP that would 

correct this deficiency in Virginia’s 

regional haze SIP by indicating that the 

Transport Rule is the alternative to this 

portion of the BART requirement. EPA 

is also proposing to find that the 

revisions submitted by Virginia meet the 

applicable visibility related 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) 

including, but not limited to 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), 

relating to visibility protection for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 

approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ 

by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of 

information’’ as a requirement for 

answers to * * * identical reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements imposed on 

ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply to this action. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to conduct a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

Federal SIP approval does not create 

any new requirements, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Moreover, due 

to the nature of the Federal-state 

relationship under the CAA, preparation 

of a flexibility analysis would constitute 

Federal inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of state action. The CAA 

forbids EPA to base its actions 

concerning SIPs on such grounds. 

Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 

246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3711 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that today’s 

proposal does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

state, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action proposes to approve preexisting requirements under State or 

local law, and imposes no new 

requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have Federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

Federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the states, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has Federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by state and local 

governments, or EPA consults with state 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

EPA also may not issue a regulation that 

has Federalism implications and that 

preempts state law unless the Agency 

consults with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed rule from tribal 

officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. This action 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on 

health or safety risks subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate 

existing technical standards when 

developing a new regulation. To comply 

with NTTAA, EPA must consider and 

use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ 

(VCS) if available and applicable when 

developing programs and policies 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval does not require the public 

to perform activities conducive to the 

use of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

Virginia Regional Haze proposed action. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve or disapprove state 

choices, based on the criteria of the 

Clean Air Act. Accordingly, it does not 

provide EPA with the discretionary 

authority to address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable 

and legally permissible methods, under 

Executive Order 12898. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: January 17, 2012. 

W. C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1510 Filed 1–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS